If the desperation of the left is any indication, the 2012 election of Mitt Romney to the US presidency has the same air of inevitability that Barack Obama’s election had four years ago:

I was on a conference call yesterday regarding intelligence gathered from a highly placed source that liberal Obama surrogates are planning to target Evangelical mega-church parking lots with bigoted anti-Mormon flyers the final weekend before the election in key battleground states like Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

Mega-church pastors are being notified to have parking lot attendants be on the lookout for such a lit drop. But please forward this post to all pastors of both Protestant and Catholic churches, particularly in battleground states.

The GOP’s all-important social conservatives may be getting more comfortable with Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith – but liberals are increasingly wary about the candidate’s religion in the run-up to November, according to a new study.

The study found anti-Mormon attitudes have increased since Romney’s 2008 presidential bid and are highest among liberal and non-religious voters….

The study found attitudes about Mormonism among Evangelicals has largely remained unchanged since 2007 – when 37% said they were “less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president,” compared with 33% this year.

However, that sentiment among non-religious voters increased from 21% to 41% over roughly the same period.

Among liberal voters, 43% said they were less likely to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate in 2012, compared with 28% in 2007.

Then there’s Andrew Sullivan who takes shrieking hysteria to a whole new level.

I raise this because it is a fact that Mitt Romney belonged to a white supremacist church for 31 years of his life, went on a mission to convert Christians and Jews and others to this church, which retained white supremacy as a doctrine until 1978 – decades after Brown vs Board of Education, and a decade after the end of the anti-miscegenation laws.

Romney’s response to the white supremacism of his church was to point to his mother’s and father’s secular support for civil rights for African-Americans, which ties in with Mormon founder Joseph Smith’s abolitionist convictions. And there is no question that Mitt Romney’s parents were heroic civil rights Republicans in the secular sphere – in a party that had not yet become the South’s racial plaything. And I do not doubt Mitt’s story about weeping upon hearing that the “ongoing revelation” had now changed. But all this evades the key question: what did the Romneys do to confront their own church’s non-secular position on the inherent spiritual inferiority of blacks? Nothing, so far as I can find. If any reader can find some, please send it to me and I’ll post it.

There’s nothing in Romney’s answer that violates the old Mormon doctrine – still there in the Book of Mormon – that for some reason, people with black skin suffer some kind of inherited curse that will only be lifted after everyone else has been saved in the hereafter.

Notice also the lack of any apparent remorse, or criticism of the church’s previous position. This is a church that can take a position rooted in its own Scripture and just one day say it’s over and let’s move on. Even white supremacism! And people still don’t see how Mormonism – its utilitarian use of truth, its studied mainstream all-American appeal, its refusal to be completely transparent to outsiders, and its insistence on never having to account for itself – isn’t integral to Mitt Romney’s personality and beliefs. Romney will no more let outsiders look at his finances than the LDS church will allow non-Mormons inside their Temples after they have been consecrated.

Look: every religion has these stains in its past. My own church committed the Inquisition and, in my view, began the demonization of the Jewish people that killed and terrified and marginalized so many for centuries, leading to the Holocaust. Its continued systematic discrimination against women is a scandal. Its criminal rape of children makes it the most flawed current Christian institution on earth. And if you asked a Catholic candidate whether it was wrong for the Church to have treated Jews as cursed and sub-human for so long, I cannot imagine any Catholic politician not saying yes. Unequivocally. Is there a mite of evidence that Mitt Romney ever challenged the white supremacism in his religion and its active racism while it was in existence and he was still a missionary and member for 31 years of his life?

Do I have problems with Mormonism? Profound problems and not just spiritual ones; the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet is too absurd to even remotely entertain. Do I consider Mormons to be Christians? Not as I understand both the meaning of that word and Mormon “theology.”

Who am I voting for for United States president in a couple of weeks? Mitt Romney.

And while we’re making people account for the mistakes of their churches, Know-Nothing, where is the evidence that Barack Obama ever called out the racialist ravings of Jeremiah Wright, a man he spent slightly over twenty years listening to? And if you think the Catholic church treats women and, I assume, gays so scandalously, why don’t you attend an Episcopal church? Ordained women, gay bishops; you’d love it there.

You can always return to a Catholic church once Rome sees the error of its ways and turns itself Episcopalian. Unless, of course, this stuff doesn’t really bother you at all. Or you can’t face Obama’s defeat and your complete repudiation so you’re just posturing again in which case you really have no business lecturing anyone at all about what they should have told their church leadership back when they were younger.

31 Comments to GOING THERE

M. L. MartinOctober 23, 2012

Both candidates appear to have severe problems with their Trinitarian theology.

Romney’s creed dissolves the unity of the substance, while Obama gives the impression that he’s added a fourth person to the hypostases.

DanOctober 23, 2012

Oh, but Sully couldn’t be the Courageous Hero Speaking Truth to Power if he were just another homosexual Episcopalian going to Services the morning after his “boys night out” orgy.

Daniel MullerOctober 23, 2012

You don’t know a single thing about this country, do you, Sully?

I only read the snippet here, but I would say that he is not exactly batting a thousand in knowledge of his “own church [sic].”

Ed the RomanOctober 23, 2012

“…a religious test had better be required as a qualification to this particular office or public trust under the United States.”

I love liberals and progressives. They are so amusing when they get hysterical. They do so on a regular basis. I believe they all suffer from Chicken Little Syndrome.

There is always some disaster about to happen that requires a bullying, all-intrusive State to rectify.

Watch your wallets and you toddlers, folks! The liberal hysterics are rampant!

FW KenOctober 23, 2012

Here’s the deal about Catholics like Sully: he’ll rant and rave, priss, prance preen and posture, then at the end, he’ll probably call a priest and be reconciled to God. One day, he’ll could be St. Andrew Sullivan. Ok, I’m not waiting for the canonization liturgy in St. Peter’s square, but you get the drift.

Elaine S.October 23, 2012

I dunno, in a strange sort of way who BETTER to be president than a Mormon since Mormonism is a totally American born and bred religion that played a significant role in our nation’s history. No pesky “loyalties” to a “foreign potentate” over in Rome or Canterbury or Constantinople, right?

My best friend in college was a member of the Reorganized LDS Church (they are now called simply the Community of Christ), the group which did NOT follow Brigham Young to Utah and, at least at one time, insisted that only a direct descendant of Joseph Smith could be their leader. Their church headquarters was in Independence, Mo. and my friend once said we should go check it out some weekend. I said sure, if she would return the favor by going to Rome with me Never did make it to either place though.

ann rOctober 23, 2012

Funny how “liberals” get hysterical about Mormonism, but are down comfy with big O’s Muslimism. Talk about misogynist, intolerant, intrusive, incompatible with a free people, Muslims have it all over Mormons!

Clown CelebrantOctober 23, 2012

Mitt Romney: Mormon. I rest my case. Don’t pretend you wouldn’t have the same problem with an atheist or a Moooslim.

Mitt Romney: “Hey, I’m a business guy, I know how to create jobs.” Riiiight. In China.

So no, Gary Johnson is not an alternative, at least not for the non-isolationist.

FW KenOctober 23, 2012

Actually, I don’t have the same problem with a Mormon as I would have with an atheist or a Muslim. Atheism is a negative, destructive ideology incapable of building a healthy society; the only things atheists know how to build is gulags. Mormonism is a Christian heresy whose ethical base and social dynamic are compatible with the American ethos. The ethical and social structures of Islam are not, I believe, compatible. Even when you are talking about “moderate” Islam, it seeks to me the underlying culture will not mix well with America no more than its mixing well in Europe.

ArnoldOctober 24, 2012

I seem to remember Andrew Sullivan announcing his departure from Catholicism several years ago in a snit over some transgression, likely the Church’s ongoing refusal to accept his theology on homosexuality and radical feminism. I assume that “systematic discrimination against women” has to do with priestesses. If he reviewed the Church’s history honestly he would know that no other church or major religion on Earth gave women such opportunities as Catholicism did, including the authority wielded by great abbesses like Hildegard of Bingen and the women who wielded great influence over men such as Catherine of Sienna and Theresa of Avila, the nuns and sisters who established and ran schools, colleges, hospitals and the like. No other organization worldwide operates as many facilities to treat the victims of AIDS, most of whom violated the Church’s teachings in contracting the condition and often in open contempt.

LaValletteOctober 24, 2012

Sullivan is against anybody or organization, inlcuding the Catholic Church, who does not approve of the gay lifestyle, the highest from of perfection and civilization ever acheieved by mankind, and more particulalry gay marriage. He will however vote for anybody who IS on favour, be he/she Secular anti-Religionists, Mormon, Evangelical, psuedo Catholic, Episcopalian, Muslim or Caluthumpian. He brings in Feminism in support of his argument only because he perceives them as allies in bringing down the Christian mortal order. As such he has no right to refer to the Catholic church as “my” Church when he denies its fundamental moral teachings.

I also wonder if he is aware of the latest historical reassesment of the Inquisition on the basis of its publicly available documents and archives especially on the issue of the grant of Natural Justice to the accused relative to the other European Courts assisting the State. authorities of the time to preserve the unity inclduing the relgious unity of the state. Compare for example the English Court of the Star Chamber.

Sullivan does not appreciate that he is not as smart as he thinks. As a public commentator his prejudices and his gay agenda badly cloud his judgement.

The attempt by some Leftists to arouse bigotry against Mormons is quite understandable. For quite a few on the port side of our politics, their Leftism is effectively a substitute religion. People who disagree with them politically are not fellow Americans to be reasoned with, but heretics to be crushed. In that endeavor any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is permissible for them.

[...] Go here to Midwest Conservative Journal to read the brilliant rest. Appeals to religious bigotry have long been a staple of Leftists in this country. Most Leftist political sites on the internet are drenched in it, in the comboxes at least if not always in the posts. Evangelicals, Catholics, anyone with the temerity to disagree with their political goals are routinely slammed, usually in the vilest terms imaginable. The attempt by some Leftists to arouse bigotry against Mormons in order to defeat Romney is therefore quite understandable and predictable. For quite a few on the port side of our politics, their Leftism is effectively a substitute religion. People who disagree with them politically are not fellow Americans to be reasoned with, but heretics to be crushed. In that endeavor any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is permissible for them. Tagged Anti-Religious Bigotry, Election 2012, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Mormons [...]

midwestnorwegianOctober 24, 2012

I attended an Arts fair in the Blue Ridge mountains of North Carolina last weekend sponsored by the local Episcopal outlet. Big event – I would guess 10-15K attendees, held in a large pasture in the gorgeous valley of Valle Crucis.

Anyway, Episcopalians were busy making apple butter, apple cider, funnel cakes and walking tacos while the LDS had pairs of evangelists mingling with the crowds and talking about their faith. And I have the pictures to prove it.

Not converting to the LDS anytime in this life….but I certainly will vote for a good man like Romney.

I recall (as if it were yesterday) that the fact that JFK was a Roman Catholic meant that he would be taking orders from the Bishop of Rome. JFK had a few serious problems but that was not one of them.

I’m voting for Romney, but only because four more years of Obama would be a disaster. However, I do not trust Romney because he’s a member of an Anti-Christ cult. The Mormons have long desired to fullfil a prophecy that they would save and take over this country. If Mittens gets into office as president they will see that as a fullfilment of that prophecy. Question: how much influence will the Mormon leadership have on Mitt? Yeah, I’m voting for him, but I say, watch him like a hawk. His outward ‘nice’ appearance could just be whitewash.

KatherineOctober 24, 2012

The increasing religious bigotry of the left reflects the hatred many atheists feel towards religious belief of any kind. They don’t hate Obama’s religious background because (a) they don’t think he’s serious about it and (b) they think it’s correct about how awful white Americans are. FW Ken has it right, I think, about atheists and Mormons both.

I could vote for an agnostic, but not for an aggressive atheist, because the former has questions but doesn’t hate. I would have grave reservations about voting for a Muslim because Islam, unlike Mormonism, is a political religion in its essence and that makes its compatibility with American democracy very questionable.

J. Stuart LittleOctober 24, 2012

I find it interesting in this election we get to vote for a Mormon or a moron.

Steve L.October 24, 2012

As PBS North, our wonderful Canadian Broadcorping Castration (I said the at least once on air) observed.

As the conservative pundit and former Bush-era speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, said on Sunday, the most interesting thing about this race now is that no one has any idea how it’s going to turn out.

But if Obama can’t stop Romney’s momentum, I may well be witnessing another historic moment in Chicago two weeks from now.

And listening to a long, loud, anguished progressive scream.

JFKAROctober 24, 2012

Donald R. McClarey wrote (above):
“…people who disagree with [liberals] politically are not fellow Americans to be reasoned with, but heretics to be crushed.”

Unfortunately, that’s pretty much how I’ve come to view the Left. They can’t be reasoned with, and they are a serious threat to our liberty and our prosperity, and that of our children, and many of their policies, outcomes, and causes are obviously Satan’s, as well; so, like Islam, I also view them as Satanic.

That’s an inescapably logical deduction to me. It’s not a rant or an emotionally based position; but it’s going too far for some people.

Ah, you must have had one of those Kermit Schaefer Radio and TV Bloopers records, as I did long long ago. The same blooper collection also includes clips of a newscaster announcing a live broadcast of election returns “as late as possible” from “the county whorehouse.”

dominic1955October 26, 2012

I don’t think whatever lefty “church” he must profess that has sodomy and in utero murder as their sacraments is the same one that had an Inquisition. Just saying…

JDPOctober 27, 2012

I like how Sullivan mentions the Inquisition and Catholic anti-Semitism in the past, and then in the next sentence says that not allowing women to be priests, in typical emotive Sullivan language (this from a guy who thinks of himself as a sober “temperamental conservative” despite spewing invective at anyone who doesn’t appreciate Obama’s genius,) is a “scandal.” continuing opreshun!

and his whole intellectualization of his “seeing what sticks” post-first debate desperation is pathetic. we get it, he won’t ever vote for a Republican unless it’s a mushy Huntsman type who expresses contempt for the GOP base, cuz every election’s an existential crisis with theoconservatives on the march. but to show that he’s not just consumed by this one issue he has to delve into all these other topics in an attempt to prove that Romney or [insert GOP candidate here] is evil in every way shape and form. it’s pathetic.

JDPOctober 27, 2012

JFKAR

I disagree, though I am thinking more of the rank-and-file middle America Democrats who perhaps aren’t especially leftist. though maybe there aren’t as many today, but these are people that can be persuaded with the right campaign.